Background: I competed in high school policy debate and in parliamentary debate on APDA as an undergrad. I have since been a volunteer coach for OSU's debate team.
Rounds Judged: Lots. Everything from/up national final rounds.
Stylistic Preferences: As long as you don't look like a clown, aren't screaming, and aren't gasping for air (which I would clump in that first category), I'm fine with speed. I will always defer to the opponents check. Simply put, if your opponent asks you to slow down, do it! A debater, or at least a good one, should be efficient with their time. Decorum is important as well. If you are demeaning or rude, your speaker points are likely to suffer.
Paradigm: Stock issues with a heavy bent toward negative presumption. Once stock issues are minimally met, however, I will tend to become more of a policymaker judge. I'm also quite a strict flow judge and have been known to vote on things I dislike or know are factually incorrect because they were dropped by the opposition.
Do you think topicality should be a voting issue? Absolutely. It's part of the social contract of competing that the plan will be resolutional.
Does there have to be demonstrable ground loss in order for you to vote on T? Nope, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Would you ever vote on an RVI? Not likely. There would have to be some super duper bad in round abuse (time skew is not abuse) for me to consider it.
Do you strictly enforce NFA rules? Yes. It is my responsibility to uphold the rules that have been established. However, re: above, I am a flow judge and will not be likely to apply the rules without your telling me to do so at some point.
Does the negative have to win a disad in order for you to vote negative? Nope. Stock issues are a very appropriate place for clash!
What kinds of impacts do you find most compelling--enormous impacts or more realistic impacts?
Realistic. Outside of debate I'm a real world policymaker. My PhD is in public policy and management. I'm much more attune to the types of considerations that go into real public policy creation. That being said, I'm also likely to know when the internal link story of a DA is full of holes or when implementation problems are likely with a plan
Background: I competed in high school policy debate and in parliamentary debate on APDA as an undergrad. I have since been a volunteer coach for OSU's debate team.
Rounds Judged: Lots. Everything from/up national final rounds.
Stylistic Preferences: As long as you don't look like a clown, aren't screaming, and aren't gasping for air (which I would clump in that first category), I'm fine with speed. I will always defer to the opponents check. Simply put, if your opponent asks you to slow down, do it! A debater, or at least a good one, should be efficient with their time. Decorum is important as well. If you are demeaning or rude, your speaker points are likely to suffer.
Paradigm: Stock issues with a heavy bent toward negative presumption. Once stock issues are minimally met, however, I will tend to become more of a policymaker judge. I'm also quite a strict flow judge and have been known to vote on things I dislike or know are factually incorrect because they were dropped by the opposition.
Do you think topicality should be a voting issue? Absolutely. It's part of the social contract of competing that the plan will be resolutional.
Does there have to be demonstrable ground loss in order for you to vote on T? Nope, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Would you ever vote on an RVI? Not likely. There would have to be some super duper bad in round abuse (time skew is not abuse) for me to consider it.
Do you strictly enforce NFA rules? Yes. It is my responsibility to uphold the rules that have been established. However, re: above, I am a flow judge and will not be likely to apply the rules without your telling me to do so at some point.
Does the negative have to win a disad in order for you to vote negative? Nope. Stock issues are a very appropriate place for clash!
What kinds of impacts do you find most compelling--enormous impacts or more realistic impacts?
Realistic. Outside of debate I'm a real world policymaker. My PhD is in public policy and management. I'm much more attune to the types of considerations that go into real public policy creation. That being said, I'm also likely to know when the internal link story of a DA is full of holes or when implementation problems are likely with a plan